Trial Lawyer

Posted by Jason Lantz on April 2, 2017 | Comments Off on Sullivan Law Group Attorneys Grill Breath Test Machine Designers

Brian Sullivan, managing partner, and Jason Lantz, attorney, Sullivan Law Group, PLLC, recently had the rare opportunity to cross-examine one of the designers of the Draeger Alcotest 9510, Washington’s new breath test machine. Attorneys Brian Sullivan, Melissa Sullivan, and Jason Lantz have been leading a group of attorneys representing dozens of consolidated defendants charged with DUI in Snohomish County to challenge the Draeger in DUI cases. Many counties in Washington, such as Snohomish, Skagit, Whatcom, and Island counties, have implemented the Draeger for DUI cases.

The attorneys at Sullivan Law Group have spent hundreds of hours researching the Draeger’s design and source code and came prepared to grill one of the primary designers of the instrument. Very few attorneys can say that they had the opportunity to grill the designer of a breath test machine used in a DUI case on the stand.

And the results were outstanding. Draeger and WSP both know how important breath temperature is to a valid test. It is one of only three critical variables in breath testing. Yet, WSP chose to not implement the temperature functionality of the Draeger machine. The testimony has paved the foundation for future motions to suppress and closing arguments to a jury.

Posted by Brian on December 20, 2012 | Comments Off on Not Guilty Verdcit in DUI Case – DUI Defense Lawyer Brian Sullivan Ends Year With Accquital

DUI Lawyer Brian Sullivan

A King County jury acquitted V.G. in December 2012 after a jury trial for Drunk Driving (Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor and/or Drugs, RCW 46.61.502). V.G. was represented by Attorney Brian M. Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan’s client had been arrested almost a year earlier. He was initially stopped for “bad driving” – that is, he failed to signal while changing lanes to get onto an on-ramp and he briefly crossed and touched and the fog line. He admitted to drinking a glass of wine. He agreed to do field sobriety tests. The Trooper said he failed them. He refused the portable breath test in the field. He was arrested. At the station he blew one and a half times the legal limit.

DUI Attorney Brian M. Sullivan was retained and fought the case tooth and nail from start to finish. Mr. Sullivan, his associate Jason Lantz, and their team of DUI investigators and Breath Test Expert Witnesses did a thorough case review and investigation. Pretrial motions were filed and argued. As a result, the jury never heard about the Breath Test that was administered. The BAC result was suppressed based in the problems with its accuracy and reliability raised in the firm’s exclusion and suppression motions.

Mr. Sullivan also suppressed key evidence in the DUI allegation: the refusal to take a portable breath alcohol test before arrest. After reviewing our motions, the prosecutor conceded and didn’t offer the refusal as evidence.

We had gutted the State’s case against my client. Plea bargains were offered. “This is a good deal, Neg 1 or trial” the government prosecutor told us. But V.G. and I both felt strongly about the case. We went to trial.

In trial, Mr. Sullivan was able to demonstrate to the jury that the tests were not administered fairly, that they were improperly scored, and that while an officer with years of experience couldn’t smell alcohol, the young Trooper, who arrived later, supposedly could. Mr. Sullivan used the State’s first responding officer – a highly trained DUI enforcement officer – against them. Mr. Sullivan was able to get him to point out to the jury some of the many issues regarding the fairness and accuracy of the testing. The State’s DUI case was cracked as Mr. Sullivan was able to, time and again, demonstrate numerous inaccuracies / discrepancies between the police dash cam video, the police reports, and the testimony.

The end result was that our client left the courtroom that day free from the charges leveled against him. Not Guilty.